On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 09:03 +0200, Michael Bruck wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Øyvind Harboe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Do we really want to go down the path of macros? > > Yes. The ifs obscure the actual algorithm by turning a short one-line > function call into five lines of (dense) operator soup with the actual > action lost somewhere in between. > > > > There are two audiences for this code: > > > > - those that work on the code all the time > > - the casual reader/debugger > > > > For the second group, the code is not less readable. > > I disagree. Unless what you are trying to read is the syntactic sugar > rather than the actual algorithm.
I think I agree with Michael; I was thinking about a similar construct recently. I would up the ante with a variant that takes an error string that would printed on failure (CHECK_RETVAL_MSG?), as that is another common pattern where a macro would make sections of code easier to read. I also suggest putting these in more generic header than arm11.h. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
